Re: Last Call: <draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-15.txt> (IPP over HTTPS Transport Binding and 'ipps' URI Scheme) to Proposed Standard

[Ira McDonald <blueroofmusic@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your cogent comments once again - inline thoughts below.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Co-Chair - TCG Trusted Mobility Solutions WG
Chair - Linux Foundation Open Printing WG
Secretary - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
Co-Chair - IEEE-ISTO PWG Internet Printing Protocol WG
IETF Designated Expert - IPP & Printer MIB
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
http://sites.google.com/site/blueroofmusic
http://sites.google.com/site/highnorthinc
mailto: blueroofmusic@xxxxxxxxx
Winter  579 Park Place  Saline, MI  48176  734-944-0094
Summer  PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI 49839  906-494-2434

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:32 AM, t.p. <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Looks good.

Some minor thoughts

s.3 " section 7 'The TLS Handshake Protocol' in [RFC5246]"
should now refer to
"section 7 'TLS Handshaking Protocols'   "

 

<ira> Agreed - will fix in next draft.

s.4.1 "Any other transport binding for IPP would require a different URI
scheme. "
sounds rather like a MUST e.g. 'This URI scheme MUST only be used with
the transport bindings specified here'

<ira> Agreed - will fix in next draft.

s.4.2 'Note: Literal IPv4 addresses'
sounds like good security advice but is not referenced by s.6  On the
other hand, I cannot see a good place in s.6 in which to insert a
reference so probably best left.

<ira> Good catch.  I'll think about making sure that somewhere in s.6
there's a back reference to most or all security-related requirements
or recommendations included in the registration template in s.4.

 

s.5
"   Encoding Considerations:  See section 4.3 of RFC xxxx.
"
should now be section 4.5.

<ira> Agreed - will fix in next draft.

I note that the latest RFC Editor guidelines say that they prefer TBD1,
TBD2 etc to xxxx which seems to me very silly - I await their response
with interest:-)

<ira> Yuck - well, I'll follow the RFC Editor's advice in next draft.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "The IESG" <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 1:30 PM
Subject: Last Call: <draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-15.txt> (IPP over
HTTPS Transport Binding and 'ipps' URI Scheme) to Proposed Standard


>
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to
consider
> the following document:
> - 'IPP over HTTPS Transport Binding and 'ipps' URI Scheme'
>   <draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme-15.txt> as Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2014-11-25. Exceptionally, comments may
be
> sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> Abstract
>
>    This document defines the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) over
HTTPS
>    transport binding and the corresponding 'ipps' URI scheme, that is
>    used to designate the access to the network location of a secure
IPP
>    print service or a network resource managed by such a service.
>
>    This document defines an alternate IPP transport binding to that
>    defined in the original IPP URL Scheme (RFC 3510), but this
document
>    does not update or obsolete RFC 3510.
>
>    This document updates RFC 2910 and RFC 2911.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme/
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcdonald-ipps-uri-scheme/ballot/
>
> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.